Embryology in the Quran: Difference between revisions

Embryology in the Quran (view source)

Revision as of 22:02, 12 April 2018

3,928 bytes removed , 12 April 2018

→‎Analysis: Simpler intro and removed redundant quote re bones which is covered in the rest of the section

[checked revision]

Lightyears

Editors, em-bypass-2, Reviewers, rollback, Administrators

2,743

edits

@@ Line 26: / Line 26: @@
 ==Analysis==
-===Debating Technique===
+The following analysis of Qur'anic embryology is fully referenced to highly regarded dictionaries of classical Arabic for the significant words, including links to Lane's Lexicon.
-Proponents of Qur'anic embryology often defend their position by claiming that words like 'alaqah can have several meanings, and that some or all of these meanings apply at the same time. Thus, we hear that the 'alaqah is a leech, or looks like a leech if viewed in a certain angle, or is a leech-like structure, is a clot of blood, or looks like a blood clot, or hangs from or clings to the endometrium. Some of these are genuine definitions of 'alaqah, others are not. Each one is problematic and will be addressed below.
+If, the reader is so inclined, they can read the relevant sections [http://embryologyinthequran.blogspot.com in a similar analysis] to see how many of the word definitions used in Islamic apologetics are based on misquotes of Arabic dictionaries and are incompatible with how those same Arabic words were used in the hadith (such as claims about the word nutfah, or that the word 'alaqah meant a "leech-like substance", or that a mudghah is not merely a small piece of meat, but one that has been chewed). For a good summary of the arbitrary assumptions and heavily selective debating technique used by apologists, with a particular focus on Keith Moore's claims, [{{Reference archive|1=http://web.archive.org/web/20060214032231/http://www.geocities.com/freethoughtmecca/embryo.html|2=2011-12-05}} see here].
-The best method of refuting Qur'anic embryology is by questioning every claim as to its validity, and to make its proponents justify every claim. This would include why they chose to make a choice when there are several other equally valid possibilities, why they chose to ignore clearly nonsensical phrases, and why they assume certain phrases to be metaphorical while others to be literal. Some will also benefit from seeing the definitions of the significant words from Lane's Lexicon of classical arabic, cited and linked throughout this article.
-If, the reader is so inclined, they can read a good summary of the arbitrary assumptions and heavily selective debating technique used by apologists, with a particular focus on Keith Moore's claims, [{{Reference archive|1=http://web.archive.org/web/20060214032231/http://www.geocities.com/freethoughtmecca/embryo.html|2=2011-12-05}} here], and can read the relevant sections [http://embryologyinthequran.blogspot.com here] to see how many of the word definitions used in Islamic apologetics are based on misquotes of Arabic dictionaries and are incompatible with how those same Arabic words were used in the hadith (such as the claims that the word 'alaqah meant a "leech-like substance", that a mudghah is not merely a small piece of meat, but one that has been chewed).
 ===Original Creation from Dust / Clay / Mud===
@@ Line 151: / Line 147: @@
 ===The Formation of Bone and Clothing with Flesh===
-There is a clear mistake in the Qur'anic idea of the formation of bone and surrounding muscles. Drs Needham and Needbeer of freethoughtmecca explain this well.
-{{Quote||While we will return to the issue of mudgha below, we should now move on to the issue of izhaam (bones). As was noted above, after the alaqa is turned into a mudgha, the Qur'an states fa-khalaqnaa al-mudghata izhaaman, or "then we formed the morsel, bones." Moore and his cohort try to change the translation to "out of the mudgha we formed bones," so as to give the impression that the bones are forming inside the embryo, rather than the entire object becoming bones. This brings to light the duplicitous nature that these people are taking to the text.
-Consider that word khalaqnaa ("we created/formed") appears in three times in Soorat al-Moominoon 23:14: (1) khalaqnaa al-nutfata alaqatan - "we formed the nutfa into an alaqa"; (2) khalaqnaa al-alaqata mudghatan - "we formed the alaqa into a mudgha"; (3) khalaqnaa al-mudghata izhaaman - "we formed the mudgha into bones." So the question that needs to be asked is how one properly interprets the logical structure khalaqnaa X,Y.
-As will be noted below, proponents of this polemic want izhaam to not actually be a reference to bone, but rather cartilaginous precursors to bone, thus we see that there are two possible (and rather different) usages of the logical structure khalaqnaa X,Y being employed. Does the logical structure mean "we formed the X into a Y," or does it mean "we caused a precursor to Y to form inside the X"? No person to put forth the polemic has ever explained which is the correct interpretation, or if both are possible how they know to use one and not the other. The reality is that khalaqnaa X,Y means "we formed the X into a Y," and there is no implication that the Y (much less something other than Y!) is only forming inside the X.
-When we reach izhaam we find another problematic part of the verse. Consider that the text reads: khalaqnaa al-mudghata izhaaman, fa-kasawnaa al-izhaaman laHman. First note that ''khalaqnaa'' (We made) is past tense, and the prefix ''fa'' means "then". So the verse reads: "we formed the morsel into bones, then we clothed the bones with flesh." Thus, it implies bone forms before soft tissue, which is a blatant error, not to mention one that parallels Galen.
-As was alluded to above, there is an argument put forth by those who push this polemic that the "bones" are actually a reference to cartilaginous models that will later ossify. Of course, the text has izhaam, which only means bone - there is no reference to cartilage (Arabic: ghudhroof), so we see that the champions of this deceptive polemic are importing things. Furthermore, as was noted in the previous paragraph, the text has a past tense conjugation followed by the word "then" (fa), thus the logic of the text is that the bones were completed, finished, and then they were clothed with flesh. This does not square with the actual process that some wish to correlate the text with, where cartilaginous skeletal models ossify while muscle forms around them simultaneously.}}
 ====Bone and Muscle Formation According to Medical Science====
-In order to compare with science the Qur'anic statement that Allah makes 'ithaman (bones<ref name="LLitham"></ref>) and then clothes (fa-kasawna<ref name="LLkasawa"></ref>) the bones with lahman (flesh<ref name="LLlahm"></ref>), first we should see what science has discovered about the process of bone and muscle formation. Here is a brief description for both of them, without any detail on the relative timing of parallel processes. The section that follows afterwards contains numerous cited scientific sources stating the timing of these processes.
+In order to compare with science the Qur'anic statement that Allah makes the lump of flesh bones ('ithaman<ref name="LLitham"></ref>) and then clothes (fa-kasawna<ref name="LLkasawa"></ref>) the bones with flesh (lahman<ref name="LLlahm"></ref>), first we should see what science has discovered about the process of bone and muscle formation. Here is a brief description for both of them, without any detail on the relative timing of parallel processes. The section that follows afterwards contains numerous cited scientific sources stating the timing of these processes. Finally we will compare this with the Qur'an.
 [[w:Mesoderm|Mesoderm]] is the middle of the three layers of the early embryo. Some of the mesoderm cells ([[w:Paraxial_mesoderm|paraxial mesoderm]]) form a series of blocks called [[w:Somite|somites]] either side of the neural tube (this tube will eventually form the spinal cord and brain). These somites will differentiate into sclerotome and myotome, which form the cartilage 'models' (or 'templates') and become connective tissues (including muscles) respectively of the future [[w:Axial_skeleton|axial skeleton]] (i.e. everything except the limbs, shoulders and pelvis). The myotome differentiates and migrates as the sclerotome is condensing into mesenchyme, which will produce cartilage. Each process occurs segmentally down the somites in a cranio-caudal sequence (head to tail).
@@ Line 196: / Line 180: @@
 Firstly, proponents of Qur'anic embryology have to explain why the author of the Qur'an was incorrect in their description and mentioned not cartilage (ghudhroof)<ref name="LLghudtroof">غضروف ghudhroof, alternatively spelt غرضوف ghurdoof - [http://www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume6/00000032.pdf Lane's Lexicon] Volume 6, page 2248</ref>) but only bone ('itham)<ref name="LLitham"></ref>, which starts to form well after muscles.
-Secondly, muscle and bone (or their precursors) develop contemporaneously, although the parallel processes start when muscle begins developing around condensations of mesenchyme that have only just begun to diffentiate into cartilage. Therefore, there is no scientific basis for the Qur'anic claim of a stage in which bone is later covered with flesh after its own formation. The prefix fa before khalaqna means "and then", indicating an uninterrupted sequence.<ref>فَ fa - [http://www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume6/00000105.pdf Lane's Lexicon] Volume 6, page 2322</ref>
+Secondly, muscle and bone (or their precursors) develop contemporaneously, although the parallel processes start when muscle begins developing around condensations of mesenchyme that have only just begun to diffentiate into cartilage. Therefore, there is no scientific basis for the Qur'anic claim of a stage in which bone is later covered with flesh after its own formation. The prefix fa before kasawna means "and then", indicating an uninterrupted sequence.<ref>فَ fa - [http://www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume6/00000105.pdf Lane's Lexicon] Volume 6, page 2322</ref>
-Even if we were to accept that the Qur'an was only referring to precursors of bone and not bone itself, even though it used the Arabic word for bone ('itham), and not cartilage (ghurdoof), the embryology is still wrong. Even if, with further and unjustifiable generosity, we suppose that the Qur'an means only the very beginning of the formation of the cartilage (chondrification) before they are in any sense complete shapes and the beginning of the formation of muscles, even this happens at the same stage (around day 41). Going back earlier still, it can even be pointed out that the precursors of muscles (myoblasts) and precursors to the cartilage (mesenchyme) are present in the limb bud as soon as it arises.
+Even if we were to accept that the Qur'an was only referring to precursor cartilage models of the bones and not bone itself, even though it used the Arabic word for bone ('itham), and not cartilage (ghurdoof), the embryology is still wrong as shown above. Even if, with further and unjustifiable generosity, we suppose that the Qur'an means only the very beginning of the formation of the cartilage (chondrification) before they are in any sense complete shapes and the beginning of the formation of muscles, even this happens at the same stage (around day 41). Going back earlier still, it can even be pointed out that the precursors of muscles (myoblasts) and precursors to the cartilage (mesenchyme) are present in the limb bud as soon as it arises.
 Of course, the natural reading of verse 23:14 is that the bones have some sort of meaningful shape, and can meaningfully be called bones. This is certainly not the case when the condensed mesenchyme has merely started to produce cartilage. Furthermore, the natural reading of verse 23:14 is that all the bones have some meaningful presence worthy of the label 'bones' before Allah clothes them with flesh. As noted in the evidence above, fingers only start to even chondrify after muscle formation is already well underway in the upper part of the limbs.